P. 1
Our Philosophy

Our Philosophy

|Views: 85|Likes:
Published by Sam Derion

More info:

Published by: Sam Derion on May 17, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Thus, our study has made it clear that the problem of the
part must be solved by a philosophical method. Philosophy
has many methods for demonstrating philosophically that
every unit is receptive to division, and that there is no
indivisible part. One of the clearest methods is to draw two
circles like a stonemill, one of which is inside the other,
with the middle point of the stonemill being the center of
the two circles. Then we put a point at a specific place on
the circumference of the big circle and a point parallel to it
on the circumference of the small circle. It is clear that if we
move the stonemill, the two circles also move. Let us move
the stonemill, making the point which is placed on the big
circle move in accordance with that movement. But we do
not allow, this point to move except as much as one of the
material units moves. Then we observe the parallel point on
the small circle, asking whether it has crossed the same
distance that was crossed by the parallel point on the big
circle -namely, one whole unit. Or has it just crossed some
of that distance? If it has crossed the same distance, this
would mean that the two points moved the same distance.
But this is impossible, because we know that the more
remote a point is from the main center of a circle, the faster
is the speed of its movement. That is why in every turn, it
crosses a longer distance than that which a point closer to

the center crosses in the same turn. Therefore, it is not
possible for the two points to cross an equal distance. If, on
the other hand, the closer point crosses a part of the distance
that is crossed by the remote point, this would mean that the
unit crossed by the remote point may be divided and
separated and is not an indivisible unit. This makes it clear
that those advocating the indivisible unit are in a difficult
position, for they cannot consider the remote (p. 856) and
the close points either as equal or as different in the quantity
of motion. The only thing that remains for them is to claim
that the parallel point on the small circle was at rest and
motionless. But all of us know that if the circle close to the
center was at rest when the big circle moved, this would
necessitate the dismantling and breaking of the parts of the

This proof shows that any supposed material unit is
receptive to division. The reason is that when the point chat
is remote from the center traverses this unit in its motion,
the close point would have traversed a part of it [only].

If the material unit is receptive to division and separation, it
is, therefore, composed of a simple matter which is the
center of the receptivity to division and of continuity which
is constitutive of its unity. Hence, it is clear that the units of
the material world are composed of matter and form.

The Philosophical Consequence

When the philosophical notion of matter, which requires
that matter be composed of matter and form, is crystallized,
we know that the philosophical [18] matter cannot itself be
the first cause of the world, since it is composed of matter
and form. Further, neither matter nor form can exist
independently of the other. Therefore, there muse be an
agent prior to the as of composition that ensures the
existence of the material units.

Put differently, the first cause is the first point in the chain
of existence. The chain of existence must begin with that
which is necessary in essence, as we learned in the previous
chapter of this investigation. Thus, the first cause is that
which is necessary in essence. (p. 857) Being so, the first
cause muse need nothing else in its being and existence. As
for the primary units of matter, they are not without need in

their material being for an external agent, since their being
is composed of matter and form. They require both, matter
and form together, and each, matter and form, requires the
other for its existence. The result of all this is the knowledge
that the first cause is external to the limits of matter, and
that the philosophical matter of the world, which is
receptive of conjunction and disjunction, is in need of an
external cause that determines its continuous or
discontinuous existence.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->